Expanding the safety net of specialty care for the uninsured: a case study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To describe core principles and processes in the implementation of a navigated care program to improve specialty care access for the uninsured.Study setting
Academic researchers, safety-net providers, and specialty physicians, partnered with hospitals and advocates for the underserved to establish Project Access-New Haven (PA-NH). PA-NH expands access to specialty care for the uninsured and coordinates care through patient navigation.Study design
Case study to describe elements of implementation that may be relevant for other communities seeking to improve access for vulnerable populations.Principal findings
Implementation relied on the application of core principles from community-based participatory research (CBPR). Effective partnerships were achieved by involving all stakeholders and by addressing barriers in each phase of development, including (1) assessment of the problem; (2) development of goals; (3) engagement of key stakeholders; (4) establishment of the research agenda; and (5) dissemination of research findings.Conclusions
Including safety-net providers, specialty physicians, hospitals, and community stakeholders in all steps of development allowed us to respond to potential barriers and implement a navigated care model for the uninsured. This process, whereby we integrated principles from CBPR, may be relevant for future capacity-building efforts to accommodate the specialty care needs of other vulnerable populations.
SUBMITTER: Spatz ES
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3393006 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Expanding the safety net of specialty care for the uninsured: a case study.
Spatz Erica S ES Phipps Michael S MS Wang Oliver J OJ Lagarde Suzanne S Lucas Georgina I GI Curry Leslie A LA Rosenthal Marjorie S MS
Health services research 20111018 1 Pt 2
<h4>Objective</h4>To describe core principles and processes in the implementation of a navigated care program to improve specialty care access for the uninsured.<h4>Study setting</h4>Academic researchers, safety-net providers, and specialty physicians, partnered with hospitals and advocates for the underserved to establish Project Access-New Haven (PA-NH). PA-NH expands access to specialty care for the uninsured and coordinates care through patient navigation.<h4>Study design</h4>Case study to d ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To determine whether safety net and non-safety net hospitals influence inpatient breast cancer care in insured and uninsured women and in white and African American women. DATA SOURCES: Six years of Virginia Cancer Registry and Virginia Health Information discharge data were linked and supplemented with American Hospital Association data. STUDY DESIGN: Hierarchical generalized linear models and linear probability regression models were used to estimate the relationship between hospital safety net status, the explanatory variables, and the days from diagnosis to mastectomy and the likelihood of breast reconstruction. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The time between diagnosis and surgery was longer in safety net hospitals for all patients, regardless of insurance source. Medicaid insured and uninsured women were approximately 20 percent less likely to receive reconstruction than privately insured women. African American women were less likely to receive reconstruction than white women. CONCLUSIONS: Following the implementation of health reform, disparities may potentially worsen if safety net hospitals' burden of care increases without commensurate increases in reimbursement and staffing levels. This study also suggests that Medicaid expansions may not improve outcomes in inpatient breast cancer care within the safety net system.
| S-EPMC3419883 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Safety net health systems face barriers to effective ambulatory medication reconciliation for vulnerable populations. Although some electronic health record (EHR) systems offer safety advantages, EHR use may affect the quality of patient-provider communication.This mixed-methods observational study aimed to develop a conceptual framework of how clinicians balance the demands and risks of EHR and communication tasks during medication reconciliation discussions in a safety net system.This study occurred 3 to 16 (median 9) months after new EHR implementation in five academic public hospital clinics. We video recorded visits between English-/Spanish-speaking patients and their primary/specialty care clinicians. We analyzed the proportion of medications addressed and coded time spent on nonverbal tasks during medication reconciliation as "multitasking EHR use," "silent EHR use," "non-EHR multitasking," and "focused patient-clinician talk." Finally, we analyzed communication patterns to develop a conceptual framework.We examined 35 visits (17%, 6/35 Spanish) between 25 patients (mean age 57, SD 11 years; 44%, 11/25 women; 48%, 12/25 Hispanic; and 20%, 5/25 with limited health literacy) and 25 clinicians (48%, 12/25 primary care). Patients had listed a median of 7 (IQR 5-12) relevant medications, and clinicians addressed a median of 3 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-5) medications. The median duration of medication reconciliation was 2.1 (IQR 1.0-4.2) minutes, comprising a median of 10% (IQR 3%-17%) of visit time. Multitasking EHR use occurred in 47% (IQR 26%-70%) of the medication reconciliation time. Silent EHR use and non-EHR multitasking occurred a smaller proportion of medication reconciliation time, with a median of 0% for both. Focused clinician-patient talk occurred a median of 24% (IQR 0-39%) of medication reconciliation time. Five communication patterns with EHR medication reconciliation were observed: (1) typical EHR multitasking for medication reconciliation, (2) dynamic EHR use to negotiate medication discrepancies, (3) focused patient-clinician talk for medication counseling and addressing patient concerns, (4) responding to patient concerns while maintaining EHR use, and (5) using EHRs to engage patients during medication reconciliation. We developed a conceptual diagram representing the dilemma of the multitasking clinician during medication reconciliation.Safety net visits involve multitasking EHR use during almost half of medication reconciliation time. The multitasking clinician balances the cognitive and emotional demands posed by incoming information from multiple sources, attempts to synthesize and act on this information through EHR and communication tasks, and adopts strategies of silent EHR use and focused patient-clinician talk that may help mitigate the risks of multitasking. Future studies should explore diverse patient perspectives about clinician EHR multitasking, clinical outcomes related to EHR multitasking, and human factors and systems engineering interventions to improve the safety of EHR use during the complex process of medication reconciliation.
| S-EPMC5962827 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify barriers and opportunities for quality diabetes care in safety net practices.MethodsIn 3 federally qualified health centers and 1 free clinic, 19 primary care clinicians profiled patient and visit characteristics and quality of care measures for 181 consecutive visits by adult type 2 diabetic patients. Open-ended questions assessed patient and clinician perception of barriers to diabetes care and patient report of enabling factors. A multidisciplinary team identified themes from open-ended responses. Logistic regression analyses assessed the association of the identified barriers/enablers with 2 measures of quality care: glycosylated hemoglobin and prophylactic aspirin use.ResultsRanked barriers noted by patients included adherence (40%), financial/insurance (23%), and psychosocial (13%) factors. Clinicians ranked systemic factors, including financial/ insurance (32%) and cultural/psychosocial (29%) factors, as important to adherence (29%) in determining quality diabetes care. Patients reported dietary and medical adherence (37%) and family/health care worker support (17%) as helpful factors. Among 175 patients with available data, glycosylated hemoglobin levels were associated with patient report of financial/insurance factors both as a barrier when visits and medications were unaffordable and as an opportunity when free or low-cost medications and services were provided. Patients' adherence with aspirin prophylaxis was strongly associated with African American race, prior prescription of aspirin and distribution of aspirin at the practice site (p<.001).ConclusionsPatients were less likely than clinicians to identify systemic and contextual factors contributing to poor diabetes care. From the front line's perspective, enabling patient self-management and systemic support is a target for improving diabetes care in safety net practices.
| S-EPMC4457369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOutpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is accepted as safe and effective for medically stable patients to complete intravenous (IV) antibiotics in an outpatient setting. Since, however, uninsured patients in the United States generally cannot afford OPAT, safety-net hospitals are often burdened with long hospitalizations purely to infuse antibiotics, occupying beds that could be used for patients requiring more intensive services. OPAT is generally delivered in one of four settings: infusion centers, nursing homes, at home with skilled nursing assistance, or at home with self-administered therapy. The first three-termed healthcare-administered OPAT (H-OPAT)--are most commonly used in the United States by patients with insurance funding. The fourth--self-administered OPAT (S-OPAT)--is relatively uncommon, with the few published studies having been conducted in the United Kingdom. With multidisciplinary planning, we established an S-OPAT clinic in 2009 to shift care of selected uninsured patients safely to self-administration of their IV antibiotics at home. We undertook this study to determine whether the low-income mostly non-English-speaking patients in our S-OPAT program could administer their own IV antimicrobials at home with outcomes as good as, or better than, those receiving H-OPAT.Methods and findingsParkland Hospital is a safety-net hospital serving Dallas County, Texas. From 1 January 2009 to 14 October 2013, all uninsured patients meeting criteria were enrolled in S-OPAT, while insured patients were discharged to H-OPAT settings. The S-OPAT patients were trained through multilingual instruction to self-administer IV antimicrobials by gravity, tested for competency before discharge, and thereafter followed at designated intervals in the S-OPAT outpatient clinic for IV access care, laboratory monitoring, and physician follow-up. The primary outcome was 30-d all-cause readmission, and the secondary outcome was 1-y all-cause mortality. The study was adequately powered for readmission but not for mortality. Clinical, sociodemographic, and outcome data were collected from the Parkland Hospital electronic medical records and the US census, constituting a historical prospective cohort study. We used multivariable logistic regression to develop a propensity score predicting S-OPAT versus H-OPAT group membership from covariates. We then estimated the effect of S-OPAT versus H-OPAT on the two outcomes using multivariable proportional hazards regression, controlling for selection bias and confounding with the propensity score and covariates. Of the 1,168 patients discharged to receive OPAT, 944 (81%) were managed in the S-OPAT program and 224 (19%) by H-OPAT services. In multivariable proportional hazards regression models controlling for confounding and selection bias, the 30-d readmission rate was 47% lower in the S-OPAT group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.53; 95% CI 0.35-0.81; p = 0.003), and the 1-y mortality rate did not differ significantly between the groups (aHR, 0.86; 95% CI 0.37-2.00; p = 0.73). The S-OPAT program shifted a median 26 d of inpatient infusion per patient to the outpatient setting, avoiding 27,666 inpatient days. The main limitation of this observational study-the potential bias from the difference in healthcare funding status of the groups-was addressed by propensity score modeling.ConclusionsS-OPAT was associated with similar or better clinical outcomes than H-OPAT. S-OPAT may be an acceptable model of treatment for uninsured, medically stable patients to complete extended courses of IV antimicrobials at home.
| S-EPMC4686020 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundQuality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.MethodsQualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.ResultsThree themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.ConclusionAligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.
| S-EPMC6222992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesEvidence suggests that homeless patients experience worse quality of care and poorer health outcomes across a range of medical conditions. It remains unclear, however, whether differences in care delivery at safety-net versus non-safety-net hospitals explain these disparities. We aimed to investigate whether homeless versus non-homeless adults hospitalised for cardiovascular conditions (acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke) experience differences in care delivery and health outcomes at safety-net versus non-safety-net hospitals.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingData including all hospital admissions in four states (Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York) in 2014.ParticipantsWe analysed 167 105 adults aged 18 years or older hospitalised for cardiovascular conditions (age mean=64.5 years; 75 361 (45.1%) women; 2123 (1.3%) homeless hospitalisations) discharged from 348 hospitals.Outcome measuresRisk-adjusted diagnostic and therapeutic procedure and in-hospital mortality, after adjusting for patient characteristics and state and quarter fixed effects.ResultsAt safety-net hospitals, homeless adults hospitalised for AMI were less likely to receive coronary angiogram (adjusted OR (aOR), 0.42; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.50; p<0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (aOR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.62; p<0.001) and coronary artery bypass graft (aOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.71; p<0.01) compared with non-homeless adults. Homeless patients treated for strokes at safety-net hospitals were less likely to receive cerebral arteriography (aOR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.34; p<0.001), but were as likely to receive thrombolysis therapy. At non-safety-net hospitals, we found no evidence that the probability of receiving these procedures differed between homeless and non-homeless adults hospitalised for AMI or stroke. Finally, there were no differences in in-hospital mortality rates for homeless versus non-homeless patients at either safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals.ConclusionDisparities in receipt of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for homeless patients with cardiovascular conditions were observed only at safety-net hospitals. However, we found no evidence that these differences influenced in-hospital mortality markedly.
| S-EPMC8039275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionClinical settings are being encouraged to identify and address patients' social needs within the clinic or through partner organizations. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe the current practice of social needs-targeted care in 3 Texas safety net clinics, and facilitators and barriers to adopting new social needs-targeted care tools and practices.MethodsInterviews were conducted with staff at 3 safety net clinics serving small and mid-sized communities. Analysis focused on perspectives and decisions around adopting new tools or practices related to social needs-targeted care, including standardized screening tools and community resource referral platforms.ResultsNine staff across 3 organizations were interviewed. Two organizations were currently using a standard social needs screening tool in their routine practice, and a third was considering doing so. One organization had adopted a community resource referral platform in partnership with a large community collaboration. Three case studies illustrate a range of facilitators, barriers, perceived benefits, and drawbacks influencing social needs-targeted practices. Benefits of systematic data collection on social needs included the generation of data for community action. Drawbacks include concerns about data privacy. Community resource referral platforms were seen as valuable for creating accountability, but required an influential community partner and adequate community resources. Concerns about disempowering clients and blurring roles were voiced, and potential to increase provider job satisfaction was identified.ConclusionsBenefits and drawbacks of adopting new tools and practices related to social needs-targeted care are strongly influenced by the community context. For the adoption of community resource referral platforms, the outer setting is particularly relevant; adoption readiness is best assessed at the community or regional level rather than the clinic system level. While screening tools are much easier than referral platforms for clinics to adopt, the ability to address identified needs remains heavily based on the outer setting.
| S-EPMC8165864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveDespite benefits of adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), many eligible breast cancer patients do not complete therapy as recommended. Patterns of AHT use have not been well studied among uninsured breast cancer patients who fall into coverage gaps or are ineligible for public insurance programs.MethodsWe identified 291 patients newly diagnosed with stages I-III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer from January 2008 to December 2012. All patients were treated at a safety-net healthcare system and enrolled in an income-based medical assistance program that fills AHT prescriptions at low cost. We extracted and linked cancer registry, pharmacy claims, and medical record data to assess AHT initiation (defined as a new AHT prescription ?18 months since diagnosis) and sociodemographic and healthcare utilization variables. Log-binomial regression was used to identify correlates of initiation.ResultsOverall, 239 (82%) patients initiated AHT. Tamoxifen (42%) and anastrozole (55%) were most commonly prescribed. The mean copay was $4.90 for tamoxifen and $6.00 for anastrozole. Although crude analyses revealed small, statistically significant prevalence ratios for race/ethnicity (Hispanic vs. white, other vs. white), year of diagnosis (2008 vs. 2012), primary care visit before diagnosis (any vs. none), and smoking status (current vs. never), there were no significant correlates of initiation in the adjusted model.ConclusionSafety-net healthcare systems providing access to AHT (i.e., through reduced copays) could improve the number of eligible patients initiating therapy. Continuity and integration of care in these settings may reduce disparities frequently observed in uninsured, low-income breast cancer populations.
| S-EPMC5512308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Most inpatient care for the uninsured and other vulnerable subpopulations occurs in safety-net hospitals. As insurance expansion increases the choice of hospitals for the previously uninsured, we examined if Massachusetts health reform was associated with shifts in the volume of inpatient care from safety-net to non-safety-net hospitals overall, or among other vulnerable sociodemographic (racial/ethnic minority, low socioeconomic status, high uninsured rate area) and clinical subpopulations (emergent status, diagnosis). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING:Discharge records for adults discharged from all nonfederal acute care hospitals in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania 2004-2010. STUDY DESIGN:Using a difference-in-differences design, we compared pre-/post-reform changes in safety-net and non-safety-net hospital discharge outcomes in Massachusetts among adults 18-64 with corresponding changes in comparisons states with no reform, overall, and by subpopulations. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Reform was not associated with changes in inpatient care use at safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals across all discharges or in most subpopulations examined. CONCLUSIONS:Demand for inpatient care at safety-net hospitals may not decrease following insurance expansion. Whether this is due to other access barriers or patient preference needs to be explored.
| S-EPMC5583295 | biostudies-other
Project description:Massachusetts' health care reform substantially decreased the percentage of uninsured residents. However, less is known about how reform affected access to care, especially according to insurance type.To assess access to care in Massachusetts after implementation of health care reform, based on insurance status and type.We surveyed a convenience sample of 431 patients presenting to the Emergency Department of Massachusetts' second largest safety net hospital between July 25, 2009 and March 20, 2010.Demographic and clinical characteristics, insurance coverage, measures of access to care and cost-related barriers to care.Patients with Commonwealth Care and Medicaid, the two forms of insurance most often newly-acquired under the reform, reported similar or higher utilization of and access to outpatient visits and rates of having a usual source of care, compared with the privately insured. Compared with the privately insured, a significantly higher proportion of patients with Medicaid or Commonwealth Care Type 1 (minimal cost sharing) reported delaying or not getting dental care (42.2 % vs. 27.1 %) or medication (30.0 % vs. 7.0 %) due to cost; those with Medicaid also experienced cost-related barriers to seeing a specialist (14.6 % vs. 3.5 %) or getting recommended tests (15.6 % vs. 5.9 %). Those with Commonwealth Care Types 2 and 3 (greater cost sharing) reported significantly more cost-related barriers to obtaining care than the privately insured (45.0 % vs. 16.0 %), to seeing a primary care doctor (25.0 % vs. 6.0 %) or dental provider (58.3 % vs. 27.1 %), and to obtaining medication (20.8 % vs. 7.0 %). No differences in cost-related barriers to preventive care were found between the privately and publicly insured.Access to care improved less than access to insurance following Massachusetts' health care reform. Many newly insured residents obtained Medicaid or state subsidized private insurance; cost-related barriers to access were worse for these patients than for the privately insured.
| S-EPMC3475814 | biostudies-other